1985 D Roosevelt RPM?
1 1

13 posts in this topic

For the record, I did my research on this one that I’m posting. I’m aware there are not any examples recognized yet by any of the TPG’s, nor Coneca, due to the lack of what has surfaced for this possibly potential RPM. There does seem to be some of these floating around but like I said, nothing attributed as of yet from what I gather. Maybe I’ve been duped on this one, won’t be the first time, but it sure looks like a viable candidate based on my knowledge (what little I have... lol).  My first observation was the placement of the mint mark. It’s positioned well right of the top of the date compared to numerous other same year and mint mark dimes that I have observed. One of the pics I took below appears to look tripled at the top left serif of the D, not sure but please take a look. Then again.... this could be nothing. It simply caught my attention after viewing several pics so I thought I would share it on the forum for comments and discussion. Thanks!  

D36E00CC-3F0D-4137-9EC5-F9B46F49345F.jpeg

91185AB4-D41C-4994-885D-497A8982E727.jpeg

C6F4B4A4-97E8-47DF-B1D2-92607E34ECC1.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

My eyes are not what they used to be. Having put that out there it appears to me that the mint mark is doubled and I see some signs of date doubling. I could not find any mention of this error anywhere but I have limited resources. All said and done it is a nice example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Moxie15 said:

that is interesting, With the wear and damage on that coin it makes it difficult to think that it would be worth much even if it is deemed to be legit

Thanks Moxie. Yeah, he’s seen some miles for sure. But, this came to mind.... the obverse rim is almost nonexistent which is obvious no doubt.  The reverse rim is a bit more visible. I then noticed the “higher” devices that are more centered on the coin which would seem to me to take the brunt of being worn down and damaged over the years and they don’t seem to be near as “flat” as the rim. For instance the nose, chin, ear... they still have decent detail for its age. The branches and leaves on the reverse still exhibit very good detail as well. It’s not FB but the flame also looks good too for its age compared to the rim and outer devices. I’m drawing a blank on the correct terminology when the actual die fails, or is overused, and leaves a flat rim which can also encroach on the letters.  Just wondering if that may be a possibility as to why the outer rim of this coin looks the way it does...? Edit: Looking again, I just noticed if this could have been a deteriorated MAD die (if that makes sense) on the obverse with the thickened northeast rim and very thin southwest rim.... just an observation. 

Edited by Greg Bradford
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ray, USMC said:

My eyes are not what they used to be.

I heard that brother!!! Like Ronnie Stein once said on this forum, “My eyes started out MS68 but after 5,682,325 Lincoln’s my eyes are now AU55”...😁. Thank you for your comment Ray and I take you are, or were, military and if so: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY!!!!! And that goes for anyone out there who served!!! God Bless you all!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Greg Bradford said:

For the record, I did my research on this one that I’m posting. I’m aware there are not any examples recognized yet by any of the TPG’s, nor Coneca, due to the lack of what has surfaced for this possibly potential RPM. There does seem to be some of these floating around but like I said, nothing attributed as of yet from what I gather. Maybe I’ve been duped on this one, won’t be the first time, but it sure looks like a viable candidate based on my knowledge (what little I have... lol).  My first observation was the placement of the mint mark. It’s positioned well right of the top of the date compared to numerous other same year and mint mark dimes that I have observed. One of the pics I took below appears to look tripled at the top left serif of the D, not sure but please take a look. Then again.... this could be nothing. It simply caught my attention after viewing several pics so I thought I would share it on the forum for comments and discussion. Thanks!  

D36E00CC-3F0D-4137-9EC5-F9B46F49345F.jpeg

91185AB4-D41C-4994-885D-497A8982E727.jpeg

C6F4B4A4-97E8-47DF-B1D2-92607E34ECC1.jpeg

Seems to be tripled to me, I’m no expert by no stretch, but I couldn’t imagine even if it did have a variety attribution available that it would be gradable due to the environmental damage (green spots). I would just flip it up and keep it. Who knows maybe 5-10/20 years down the road more will surface and a variety will become available. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KyCoinKollektor said:

Seems to be tripled to me, I’m no expert by no stretch, but I couldn’t imagine even if it did have a variety attribution available that it would be gradable due to the environmental damage (green spots). I would just flip it up and keep it. Who knows maybe 5-10/20 years down the road more will surface and a variety will become available. 

Thanks for your response Ky. I’m not looking for grade-ability on this one. I know it has its issues with wear, PMD, etc.... Just looking for some feedback regarding what appears to be a legit RPM. Obviously for attribution I would need to send it in. But then again, I would probably be wasting money....

Link to post
Share on other sites

There does appear to be a clear split in the bottom serf and a loop inside the D, I think its a possibility that you have an OMM.  But as the coin displays some odd wear/striking anomalies I am not certain that it would be attributed.  The tripling that you see looks to be just some strike doubling to me.  I'd be tempted to send it in just to see, even a low graded discovery coin is cool if it turned out to be one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

There does appear to be a clear split in the bottom serf and a loop inside the D, I think its a possibility that you have an OMM.  But as the coin displays some odd wear/striking anomalies I am not certain that it would be attributed.  The tripling that you see looks to be just some strike doubling to me.  I'd be tempted to send it in just to see, even a low graded discovery coin is cool if it turned out to be one.

Thanks Coinbuf. It would be interesting to look into this about being a discovery coin if this just so happened to be one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member: Seasoned Veteran

The mintmark displays just die erosion. A number of 1985-P dimes appear to have been coined on unmilled planchets (ones that were not given a raised rim in the upsetting mill), but it's less often seen with 1985-D dimes. This circumstance aggravated the poor definition and distorted lettering seen on the subject coin. All of these issues were matters of poor quality control, a condition that was widespread at the U. S. Mints in the early 1980s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, DWLange said:

The mintmark displays just die erosion. A number of 1985-P dimes appear to have been coined on unmilled planchets (ones that were not given a raised rim in the upsetting mill), but it's less often seen with 1985-D dimes. This circumstance aggravated the poor definition and distorted lettering seen on the subject coin. All of these issues were matters of poor quality control, a condition that was widespread at the U. S. Mints in the early 1980s.

Thank you for that info, much appreciated. With all due respect, is this a waste of time trying to attribute? The three clearly defined serifs at the top, and the three at the bottom of the leg, are readily visible. 



 

D020571B-F6CA-4D52-B684-B785500197F7.jpeg

Edited by Greg Bradford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1